sci.logic (date)
February 28, 2006
- Re: Arithmetic without the Successor Axiom, abo, 15:45
- Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic, Chris Menzel, 15:06
- Re: Proving invalidity in first-order logic, timvaz_059, 13:03
- Re: Equivalence of fragments of second-order logic, Michael De, 12:26
- Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic, Charlie-Boo, 12:09
- Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic, Charlie-Boo, 12:04
- Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic, Charlie-Boo, 11:58
- Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic, Chris Menzel, 10:03
- Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 07:45
- Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 07:30
- Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:52
- Re: Proving invalidity in first-order logic, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:42
- Proving invalidity in first-order logic, ali_tofigh, 06:12
- Re: Equivalence of fragments of second-order logic, Aatu Koskensilta, 05:42
- Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic, David C . Ullrich, 05:31
- Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic, David C . Ullrich, 05:24
- Re: inverse/obverse, waveletter, 01:35
February 27, 2006
- Equivalence of fragments of second-order logic, Michael De, 22:23
- Re: Peano's Axioms from the Field Axioms alone?, Dan Christensen, 22:14
- Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic, Chris Menzel, 20:45
- Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic, Charlie-Boo, 20:18
- Re: Proving induction, Charlie-Boo, 19:53
- Re: Proving induction, Jan Burse, 18:35
- Re: Peano's Axioms from the Field Axioms alone?, Jan Burse, 18:09
- Re: Peano's Axioms from the Field Axioms alone?, Jan Burse, 17:52
- Re: Peano's Axioms from the Field Axioms alone?, Dan Christensen, 17:46
- Multiple Natures Conjecture, mobydikc, 15:03
- Re: Proving induction, Charlie-Boo, 13:44
- Re: Proving induction, Charlie-Boo, 13:40
- Re: Axioms for the real numbers, Dan Christensen, 13:25
- Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic, george, 12:12
- Re: Axioms for the real numbers, george, 12:07
- Re: Comparing Proofs of Rosser's 1936 Theorem, Charlie-Boo, 11:19
- Re: Comparing Proofs of Rosser's 1936 Theorem, Charlie-Boo, 11:02
- Re: First Order Logic, Bertie Reed, 09:58
- Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic, William Elliot, 09:51
- Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 09:50
- Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic, Nam Nguyen, 09:40
- Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic, ali_tofigh, 08:50
- Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 08:41
- Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic, ali_tofigh, 07:43
- Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 07:26
- truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic, ali_tofigh, 07:09
February 26, 2006
- Re: inverse/obverse, Ken Pledger, 18:33
- Re: Is exponentiation constructive?, Giovanni Lagnese, 17:21
- Re: First Order Logic, thefrenchcody, 16:09
- Re: Is exponentiation constructive?, thefrenchcody, 16:00
- Re: Peano's Axioms from the Field Axioms alone?, Jan Burse, 13:33
- Re: Peano's Axioms from the Field Axioms alone?, Dan Christensen, 12:01
- Re: Comparing Proofs of Rosser's 1936 Theorem, Charlie-Boo, 10:29
- Re: Comparing Proofs of Rosser's 1936 Theorem, Charlie-Boo, 10:26
- Re: Peano's Axioms from the Field Axioms alone?, Jan Burse, 06:29
- Re: Peano's Axioms from the Field Axioms alone?, William Elliot, 05:19
- Re: Peano's Axioms from the Field Axioms alone?, Jan Burse, 04:01
- Re: Peano's Axioms from the Field Axioms alone?, Jan Burse, 03:52
- Re: Peano's Axioms from the Field Axioms alone?, William Elliot, 02:21
February 25, 2006
- Re: Peano's Axioms from the Field Axioms alone?, Dan Christensen, 23:55
- Is exponentiation constructive?, Giovanni Lagnese, 21:55
- Peano's Axioms from the Field Axioms alone?, Dan Christensen, 16:50
- Re: A Definition of an Algorithm, george, 15:37
- Re: A Definition of an Algorithm, george, 15:06
February 23, 2006
- Re: Question about Axiom of Separation, Daryl McCullough, 22:56
- Question about Axiom of Separation, agapito6314, 21:41
- Re: Where is the moebius theorem hiding?, ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx, 18:22
- Re: Objections to Nik Weaver's predicativism/conceptualism and to the natural numbers as marks on paper, abo, 11:46
- Re: Where is the moebius theorem hiding?, Ken Quirici, 10:03
- Where is the moebius theorem hiding?, Ken Quirici, 09:31
- Objections to Nik Weaver's predicativism/conceptualism and to the natural numbers as marks on paper, R. Srinivasan, 06:24
- Re: Deductive/Inductive Arguments, William Elliot, 05:20
- Re: Deductive/Inductive Arguments, R. Srinivasan, 02:40
February 22, 2006
- Re: inverse/obverse, michaelbell, 22:37
- Re: Deductive/Inductive Arguments, William Elliot, 22:32
- Re: Do mathematicians know their axioms?, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, 20:45
- Re: inverse/obverse, Ken Pledger, 16:50
- Re: A Definition of an Algorithm, Aatu Koskensilta, 16:39
- Re: Scientists evolutionary precursers to autistics, Peter Webb, 16:18
- Re: A Definition of an Algorithm, Googmeister, 15:45
- inverse/obverse, michaelbell, 14:50
- Re: Do mathematicians know their axioms?, abo, 14:37
- Re: Do mathematicians know their axioms?, Anders Goeransson, 13:24
- Re: Do mathematicians know their axioms?, abo, 13:02
- Re: Do mathematicians know their axioms?, Anders Goeransson, 11:56
- Re: Do mathematicians know their axioms?, abo, 11:43
- Re: Question to supporters of Intelligent Design, Johannes Werner, 11:19
- Re: Deductive/Inductive Arguments, R. Srinivasan, 08:33
- Re: Question to supporters of Intelligent Design, Arno Nymph, 08:18
- Re: Do mathematicians know their axioms?, abo, 08:03
- Re: A Definition of an Algorithm, noson, 08:00
- Re: Do mathematicians know their axioms?, matthias, 07:24
- Scientists evolutionary precursers to autistics, downinthefolds, 05:50
- Re: Question to supporters of Intelligent Design, Cheeze, 04:40
- Re: Do mathematicians know their axioms?, abo, 03:15
- Re: Deductive/Inductive Arguments, William Elliot, 03:14
- Re: Do mathematicians know their axioms?, Jiri Lebl, 03:08
- Re: Deductive/Inductive Arguments, sradhakr, 02:17
- Re: Do mathematicians know their axioms?, abo, 01:06
February 21, 2006
- Please provide me statistical help, sam, 18:35
- Re: Z set theory - predicative or impredicative?, Aatu Koskensilta, 18:02
- Re: Z set theory - predicative or impredicative?, MoeBlee, 13:25
- Re: Do mathematicians know their axioms?, Herman Rubin, 11:28
- Re: Comparing Proofs of Rosser's 1936 Theorem, Torkel Franzen, 09:21
- Re: A Definition of an Algorithm, Googmeister, 07:33
- Re: Deductive/Inductive Arguments, William Elliot, 05:30
- Re: Deductive/Inductive Arguments, tjb, 04:03
- Re: Deductive/Inductive Arguments, William Elliot, 01:56
- Deductive/Inductive Arguments, Bill Taylor, 00:32
February 20, 2006
- Re: Deductive/Inductive Arguments, tjb, 21:38
- Re: Equivalence Laws between logic and arithmetic, Barb Knox, 21:13
- Re: Deductive/Inductive Arguments, William Elliot, 21:03
- Deductive/Inductive Arguments, tjb, 20:18
- Re: Do mathematicians know their axioms?, matthias, 19:36
- Re: Do mathematicians know their axioms?, matthias, 19:22
- Re: Equivalence Laws between logic and arithmetic, Jan Burse, 18:50
- Re: Equivalence Laws between logic and arithmetic, Ken Pledger, 17:48
- Re: Do mathematicians know their axioms?, abo, 17:27
- Re: Do mathematicians know their axioms?, James Dolan, 16:39
- Re: Do mathematicians know their axioms?, Herman Rubin, 16:34
- Re: Do mathematicians know their axioms?, Herman Rubin, 16:14
- Re: Arithmetic without the Successor Axiom, Herman Rubin, 16:02
- Re: Axioms for the real numbers, Nam Nguyen, 11:41
- Re: Axioms for the real numbers, Norman Megill, 11:41
- A Definition of an Algorithm, noson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 08:15
- Re: Axioms for the real numbers, un student, 07:23
- Re: Comparing Proofs of Rosser's 1936 Theorem, David C . Ullrich, 07:13
February 19, 2006
- Comparing Proofs of Rosser's 1936 Theorem, Charlie-Boo, 18:15
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Charlie-Boo, 18:06
- Re: Do mathematicians know their axioms?, Ken Pledger, 17:15
- Re: Do mathematicians know their axioms?, abo, 16:12
- Re: Do mathematicians know their axioms?, Ken Pledger, 15:49
- Re: Do mathematicians know their axioms?, David C . Ullrich, 15:10
- Re: Do mathematicians know their axioms?, abo, 11:40
- Re: Do mathematicians know their axioms?, abo, 11:39
- Re: Do mathematicians know their axioms?, David C . Ullrich, 11:19
- Do mathematicians know their axioms?, abo, 10:12
- Re: Equivalence Laws between logic and arithmetic, Jan Burse, 07:02
- Re: Proving induction, smnewberger, 05:59
- Re: completeness of predicate calculus, Rupert, 05:44
- Re: completeness of predicate calculus, Rupert, 05:42
- Re: Equivalence Laws between logic and arithmetic, ccghzhu, 00:56
February 17, 2006
- THE OSLO 3:D DEGREE EQUATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, NILS BÖRJESSON, 22:25
- Get $5.00 BONUS and do your own FOREX TRADING, Get $5.00 BONUS and do your own FOREX TRADING, 17:02
- Re: Arithmetic without the Successor Axiom, Patrick, 05:24
- Re: Equivalence Laws between logic and arithmetic, William Elliot, 04:38
- Equivalence Laws between logic and arithmetic, studylogic06, 02:46
- Re: Z set theory - predicative or impredicative?, Aatu Koskensilta, 01:26
February 16, 2006
- Re: Arithmetic without the Successor Axiom, dchris, 23:45
- Re: Can p implies q be drawn in a venn diagram?, gaya . patel, 23:16
- Re: Can p implies q be drawn in a venn diagram?, William Elliot, 23:11
- Can p implies q be drawn in a venn diagram?, gaya . patel, 22:35
- Z set theory - predicative or impredicative?, MoeBlee, 20:50
- Re: PROOF THAT THERE ARE AN INFINITY OF PRIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, asimpleton, 15:25
- Re: completeness of predicate calculus, Chris Menzel, 15:24
- Re: completeness of predicate calculus, Chris Menzel, 12:31
- Re: completeness of predicate calculus, Daryl McCullough, 10:38
- Re: completeness of predicate calculus, Aatu Koskensilta, 07:41
- Re: completeness of predicate calculus, markwh04, 06:34
- Re: The tluth, Aatu Koskensilta, 04:43
- PROOF THAT THERE ARE AN INFINITY OF PRIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, NILS BÖRJESSON, 04:02
- ALL M IS DIVISIBLE BY SOME OF THE NUMBERS:, NILS BÖRJESSON, 03:20
- Re: The tluth, Aatu Koskensilta, 02:41
- ALL M IS DIVISIBLE BY SOME OF THE NUMBERS:, NILS BÖRJESSON, 02:34
- The tluth, Aatu Koskensilta, 02:22
February 13, 2006
- Re: Is it a logical fallacy to change position?, William Elliot, 21:47
- Is it a logical fallacy to change position?, gregl, 20:28
- Re: completeness of predicate calculus, george, 18:59
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Charlie-Boo, 16:41
- Re: Which logic?, poopdeville, 16:12
- Re: propsitional calculs vs. propositional logic, poopdeville, 16:01
- Re: mathematical proofs? logical statements or not?, poopdeville, 15:54
- Re: completeness of predicate calculus, Chris Menzel, 12:53
- Re: completeness of predicate calculus, falcon, 11:51
- Re: UPPER-BOUND FOR THE NUMBER OF POSITIONS IN CHESS!!!!!, Harris, 11:04
- Re: propsitional calculs vs. propositional logic, Torkel Franzen, 06:09
- Re: mathematical proofs? logical statements or not?, LordBeotian, 06:09
- propsitional calculs vs. propositional logic, logicstudy06, 05:47
February 12, 2006
- Re: Which logic?, Mark-T, 19:36
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Chris Menzel, 19:18
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Charlie-Boo, 18:01
- Re: names for kinds of completeness, Aatu Koskensilta, 16:01
- Re: mathematical proofs? logical statements or not?, gaya . patel, 12:26
- Re: mathematical proofs? logical statements or not?, LordBeotian, 04:39
- Re: Arithmetic without the Successor Axiom, abo, 01:23
February 11, 2006
- UPPER-BOUND FOR THE NUMBER OF POSITIONS IN CHESS!!!!!, NILS BÖRJESSON, 16:36
- Re: what syntactic role does the expression f:A->B play?, george, 16:27
- Arithmetic without the Successor Axiom, abo, 16:14
- names for kinds of completeness, george, 15:58
- Re: review of Goldstein's book on Godel, Jan Burse, 11:52
- Re: review of Goldstein's book on Godel, Paul Holbach, 10:14
- Re: Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., LordBeotian, 06:45
- Re: Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Giovanni Lagnese, 06:34
- Re: Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., LordBeotian, 06:28
- Re: Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Giovanni Lagnese, 05:58
- Re: Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., LordBeotian, 05:44
- Re: Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Giovanni Lagnese, 05:11
- Re: CH yet again., Robert E. Beaudoin, 00:42
February 10, 2006
- mathematical proofs? logical statements or not?, gaya . patel, 20:52
- Re: completeness of predicate calculus, Barb Knox, 20:08
- Re: completeness of predicate calculus, Paul Holbach, 19:51
- Re: completeness of predicate calculus, Rupert, 19:03
- Re: Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., LordBeotian, 18:43
- Re: completeness of predicate calculus, markwh04, 18:23
- Re: Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Giovanni Lagnese, 17:05
- Mental Abuse, medicaldevicetragedy, 12:44
- Re: CH yet again., Aatu Koskensilta, 04:17
- review of Goldstein's book on Godel, m s, 02:08
- Re: completeness of predicate calculus, Rupert, 01:39
- Re: CH yet again., Keith Ramsay, 00:09
February 09, 2006
- Re: Looking for further studies on logic, adamgolding, 21:04
- completeness of predicate calculus, falcon, 20:33
- Re: Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., george, 19:02
- Re: CH yet again., george, 18:16
- Re: Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., george, 18:10
- Re: what syntactic role does the expression f:A->B play?, MoeBlee, 17:40
- Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Top Cop, 13:51
- computability and logic; proving decidability, Per Freem, 13:18
- Re: [new version] Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Daryl McCullough, 10:21
- Re: Which logic?, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:38
- Re: [new version] Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Torkel Franzen, 05:16
- Re: Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Torkel Franzen, 05:15
- Re: Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Torkel Franzen, 05:14
- Re: [new version] Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Giovanni Lagnese, 03:36
- Re: Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Giovanni Lagnese, 03:16
- Re: Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Giovanni Lagnese, 03:13
- Re: [new version] Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Torkel Franzen, 02:55
- Re: Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Torkel Franzen, 02:54
- Re: Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Torkel Franzen, 02:53
- Re: what syntactic role does the expression f:A->B play?, William Elliot, 02:23
- Re: Which logic?, Mark-T, 00:54
February 08, 2006
- Re: what syntactic role does the expression f:A->B play?, William Elliot, 23:21
- Re: what syntactic role does the expression f:A->B play?, William Elliot, 23:18
- Re: this should be easy but.., William Elliot, 23:08
- Re: this should be easy but.., adamgolding, 22:01
- Re: this should be easy but.., G . Frege, 22:00
- Re: this should be easy but.., G . Frege, 21:56
- Re: this should be easy but.., adamgolding, 21:54
- Re: Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Pierre Asselin, 20:38
- Re: what syntactic role does the expression f:A->B play?, adamgolding, 18:06
- Re: what syntactic role does the expression f:A->B play?, adamgolding, 17:46
- Re: [new version] Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Giovanni Lagnese, 17:38
- Re: what syntactic role does the expression f:A->B play?, adamgolding, 17:32
- Re: what syntactic role does the expression f:A->B play?, george, 17:30
- Re: Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Giovanni Lagnese, 17:27
- Re: Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Giovanni Lagnese, 17:27
- Re: Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Torkel Franzen, 05:30
- Re: Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Torkel Franzen, 05:29
- Re: Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Giovanni Lagnese, 04:30
- Re: Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Giovanni Lagnese, 04:21
- Re: Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Aatu Koskensilta, 01:53
- Re: what syntactic role does the expression f:A->B play?, William Elliot, 00:05
February 07, 2006
- Re: what syntactic role does the expression f:A->B play?, William Elliot, 23:58
- Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Bill Taylor, 23:53
- CH yet again., Bill Taylor, 23:40
- Re: what syntactic role does the expression f:A->B play?, adamgolding, 23:27
- Re: what syntactic role does the expression f:A->B play?, adamgolding, 23:01
- Re: what syntactic role does the expression f:A->B play?, William Elliot, 22:14
- Re: this should be easy but.., William Elliot, 22:07
- what syntactic role does the expression f:A->B play?, adamgolding, 21:37
- Re: this should be easy but.., G . Frege, 18:58
- Re: this should be easy but.., adamgolding, 18:50
- Re: this should be easy but.., adamgolding, 18:24
- Re: Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Barb Knox, 18:18
- Re: <=> same as <-> ?, gaya . patel, 17:33
- Re: <=> same as <-> ?, gaya . patel, 17:02
- Dear platonists, dear realists for natural numbers..., Giovanni Lagnese, 16:00
- Re: this should be easy but.., G . Frege, 13:34
- Re: this should be easy but.., G . Frege, 13:23
- Re: this should be easy but.., William Elliot, 09:41
- Re: this should be easy but.., adamgolding, 02:32
- Re: this should be easy but.., G . Frege, 01:47
- Re: this should be easy but.., G . Frege, 01:42
February 06, 2006
- Re: this should be easy but.., William Elliot, 23:15
- Re: Necessary but not sufficient, Tim, 18:28
- Re: this should be easy but.., adamgolding, 17:30
- Re: this should be easy but.., Chris Menzel, 13:37
- Re: Necessary but not sufficient, Roman, 10:51
- Re: Necessary but not sufficient, Arturo Magidin, 09:36
- Re: CH yet again., Keith Ramsay, 05:49
- Necessary but not sufficient, H., 04:57
- Re: this should be easy but.., William Elliot, 03:36
- this should be easy but.., adamgolding, 01:50
February 05, 2006
- Re: question about Godel numbers, Rupert, 21:22
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Chris Menzel, 19:10
- Re: CH yet again., Robert E. Beaudoin, 17:03
- Re: Where is the error?, Jan Burse, 16:13
- Re: Which logic?, george, 14:06
- Re: question about Godel numbers, Per Freem, 14:05
- Re: Question about set definition, agapito6314, 12:20
- Re: Where is the error?, Torkel Franzen, 09:22
- Re: Where is the error?, Daryl McCullough, 09:18
- Re: Where is the error?, Daryl McCullough, 09:12
- Re: Where is the error?, Jan Burse, 08:53
- Re: Choice Question # 2, David C . Ullrich, 08:29
- Re: Where is the error?, Torkel Franzen, 07:59
- Re: Where is the error?, Torkel Franzen, 07:58
- Re: Which logic?, Aatu Koskensilta, 07:26
- Re: Where is the error?, Jan Burse, 07:01
- Re: Where is the error?, Jan Burse, 07:01
- Re: Which logic?, Mark-T, 06:12
- Re: Where is the error?, Torkel Franzen, 05:29
- Re: Where is the error?, Torkel Franzen, 02:58
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Charlie-Boo, 01:04
- Re: Looking for further studies on logic, waveletter, 00:36
- Re: Looking for further studies on logic, waveletter, 00:36
February 04, 2006
- Re: Question about set definition, Owen, 21:16
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Chris Menzel, 21:07
- Re: Question about set definition, agapito6314, 19:02
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Jan Burse, 19:02
- Re: CH yet again., Aatu Koskensilta, 18:50
- Chemical imbalances: A possible treatment., caesarjbsquitti, 18:07
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Charlie-Boo, 18:03
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Daryl McCullough, 17:32
- Re: CH yet again., george, 17:23
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Jan Burse, 17:21
- Re: Where is the error?, Jan Burse, 16:46
- Re: Where is the error?, Charlie-Boo, 13:31
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Charlie-Boo, 13:02
- Re: Question about set definition, MoeBlee, 12:26
- Re: Where is the error?, Torkel Franzen, 11:11
- Re: Choice Question # 2, David C . Ullrich, 11:04
- Re: Where is the error?, Jan Burse, 10:55
- Re: Question about set definition, Owen, 10:09
- Re: Where is the error?, Charlie-Boo, 09:43
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Charlie-Boo, 09:40
- Re: Where is the error?, Charlie-Boo, 09:07
- Re: Where is the error?, Torkel Franzen, 08:56
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Charlie-Boo, 08:40
- Re: Where is the error?, Charlie-Boo, 08:19
- Re: Where is the error?, Torkel Franzen, 07:13
- Re: CH yet again., Keith Ramsay, 07:02
- Re: Where is the error?, Jan Burse, 06:44
- Re: Where is the error?, Torkel Franzen, 01:28
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Keith Ramsay, 01:27
- Re: Where is the error?, Torkel Franzen, 01:26
February 03, 2006
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Charlie-Boo, 23:30
- Re: Which logic?, Rupert, 21:50
- Re: Where is the error?, Charlie-Boo, 20:36
- Re: Where is the error?, Jan Burse, 18:46
- Re: Question about set definition, MoeBlee, 15:59
- Re: Question about set definition, Owen, 15:23
- Re: Question about set definition, MoeBlee, 15:21
- Re: Question about set definition, Owen, 15:17
- Re: Question about set definition, agapito6314, 12:56
- Re: Ad hominem [summary], Mark K. Bilbo, 10:21
- Re: Intuitionist Arithmetic + Church's Thesis, matthias, 10:04
- Re: Choice Question # 2, David C . Ullrich, 08:59
- Re: A new geometry (in Klein's sense)?, Giovanni Lagnese, 08:54
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Norman Megill, 08:13
- Re: incompleteness of first-order logic, Bertie Reed, 07:39
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Jan Burse, 07:36
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Jan Burse, 07:34
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Jan Burse, 07:32
- Re: Question about set definition, Owen, 06:18
- Re: Where is the error?, Torkel Franzen, 06:07
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Charlie-Boo, 05:57
- Re: Where is the error?, Charlie-Boo, 05:24
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Jan Burse, 04:11
- Re: Where is the error?, Torkel Franzen, 04:03
- Ad hominem [summary], me2, 03:08
- Re: A new geometry (in Klein's sense)?, William Elliot, 02:41
- Re: A new geometry (in Klein's sense)?, Giovanni Lagnese, 02:18
- Re: A new geometry (in Klein's sense)?, William Elliot, 01:27
February 02, 2006
- Re: question about Godel numbers, Rupert, 23:14
- Re: Where is the error?, Charlie-Boo, 22:14
- Re: Question about set definition, Barb Knox, 20:10
- Re: Where is the error?, Daryl McCullough, 18:37
- Re: Question about set definition, agapito6314, 17:44
- Re: Where is the error?, Charlie-Boo, 17:22
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Charlie-Boo, 17:10
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Charlie-Boo, 16:45
- Re: Question about set definition, agapito6314, 16:26
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Charlie-Boo, 16:23
- Re: Where is the error?, Torkel Franzen, 15:37
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Jan Burse, 15:31
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Jan Burse, 15:21
- Re: Where is the error?, Charlie-Boo, 15:18
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Jan Burse, 15:14
- Re: Where is the error?, Charlie-Boo, 15:11
- Re: Where is the error?, Torkel Franzen, 15:06
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Charlie-Boo, 14:31
- Re: Where is the error?, Charlie-Boo, 14:20
- Re: There is no language of arithmetic, MoeBlee, 14:03
- Re: Where is the error?, Charlie-Boo, 13:56
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Charlie-Boo, 13:50
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Charlie-Boo, 13:42
- Re: Where is the error?, Alan Smaill, 13:33
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Charlie-Boo, 13:22
- Re: Where is the error?, Charlie-Boo, 13:11
- A new geometry (in Klein's sense)?, Giovanni Lagnese, 12:29
- Re: Where is the error?, Torkel Franzen, 12:16
- Re: Where is the error?, Jan Burse, 12:05
- Re: Where is the error?, Charlie-Boo, 11:57
- Re: Where is the error?, Jan Burse, 11:56
- Re: Where is the error?, Charlie-Boo, 11:54
- Re: Where is the error?, Alan Smaill, 11:39
- Re: Where is the error?, Torkel Franzen, 11:36
- Re: Where is the error?, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 10:56
- Re: Where is the error?, Charlie-Boo, 10:53
- Re: Where is the error?, Daryl McCullough, 10:30
- Re: Where is the error?, Charlie-Boo, 10:15
- Re: Where is the error?, Jan Burse, 10:14
- Re: Where is the error?, Charlie-Boo, 09:48
- Beauty is a relactionship, Roberto Vescarelli, 09:46
- Re: Choice Question # 2, David C . Ullrich, 08:03
- Re: Where is the error?, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 07:31
- Re: Where is the error?, Alan Smaill, 06:46
- Re: Where is the error?, Aatu Koskensilta, 02:05
February 01, 2006
- Re: There is no language of arithmetic, Nam Nguyen, 23:11
- Re: There is no language of arithmetic, Jan Burse, 21:28
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Jan Burse, 21:13
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Jan Burse, 21:06
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Chris Menzel, 20:33
- Re: Intuitionist Arithmetic + Church's Thesis, matthias, 19:52
- Re: <=> same as <-> ?, Owen, 19:49
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Barb Knox, 17:43
- Intuitionist Arithmetic + Church's Thesis, Colin, 17:34
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Daryl McCullough, 16:26
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Norman Megill, 16:18
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Charlie-Boo, 15:19
- Re: Where is the error?, Charlie-Boo, 15:01
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Charlie-Boo, 14:47
- Re: Where is the error?, Charlie-Boo, 14:40
- Re: Question about set definition, Owen, 11:44
- Re: Constructivist help, please, andrew, 10:13
- Re: Constructivist help, please, andrew, 10:08
- Re: Constructivist help, please, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 10:08
- Re: Constructivist help, please, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 09:57
- Re: Constructivist help, please, andrew, 09:35
- Re: Choice Question # 2, David C . Ullrich, 08:53
- Re: Constructivist help, please, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 08:41
- Constructivist help, please, andrew, 07:57
- Re: <=> same as <-> ?, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 06:16
- Re: Where is the error?, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 05:59
- Re: Question about set definition, William Elliot, 01:58
- Re: Where is the error?, Torkel Franzen, 00:56
January 31, 2006
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Norman Megill, 23:16
- Re: Choice Question # 2, Chris Menzel, 21:55
- Re: <=> same as <-> ?, gaya . patel, 21:04
- Re: incompleteness of first-order logic, Jan Burse, 17:06
- Re: incompleteness of first-order logic, Jan Burse, 16:46
Privacy Policy